Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (75951)	7/5/2011 6:37:08 AM
From: Hawkmoon	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217712

in a sentence, dsk was judged guilty and punished without a shred of evidence of any wrong-doing, based on just and only the words of a criminal, money launderer, prostitute, and blackmailer. No, he was not.. but he was considered a flight risk. And the high bail, given the fact that he refused to make any statement in his defense (according to his lawyer's instructions) casts suspicion that he had something to hide regarding the events. But suspicion is not proof, therefore they could not deny him bail and keep him incarcerated. But they did set it high enough to make it financially painful for him to skip the country (minus a passport). DSK is not the only person that has been the recipient of harsh justice. I have a relative who was charged with a DUI (he'd had several in the past). The judge ordered an extremely high bail that he could not financially afford. It was higher than some suspects get for armed robbery and other violent crimes. All because he refused to take a breathalyzer. The blood result later indicated a slightly elevated blood alcohol level just a tad above what was legal. But no proof that he passed that threshold in the period after he was arrested, or was "coming down" from a higher level. He spent 7 months in country jail before he was convicted and sentenced. He got 25 years in prison (minimum of 7 years before probation eligibililty). Of course, I will state that his attitude (being above the law) was greatly responsible for the harsh sentence. But his was not even a crime of violence. No one was hurt and he had even successfully parked his vehicle prior to apprehension by the police. The bottom line is that a person has a right to "lawyer up" and avoid answering questions that would assist the detectives in determining the merit of an allegation. And while that silence may protect them in a court of law, it will not assist them when it comes to determining their risk of flight and thwarting the legal process. I think the police followed procedure as well, although there would have been no harm is "triggering" his asserting his Miranda rights by questioning him right away. But I understand their hesitation, given his high profile status. Scum that the maid may actually be, she has rights to. And just because she's a scumbag, it doesn't mean there DSK didn't commit forcible rape against her. But I would agree that the evidence certainly calls all of her testimony into question, if not having risen to the level of obstruction of justice and perjury. I'm all for her being charged, tried, and convicted, as a lesson to others who would make false allegations. And given the status of Chinese illegal detentions (the recent detention of the Chinese artist), you don't have much room to throw stones in your glass house. Don't see you complaining much about that case.. Why not? Hawk